商标品质保证功能研究

发布时间：2018-03-12 12:30

本文选题：品质保证功能　切入点：非独立性　出处：《华东政法大学》2015年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：关于商标品质保证功能,目前学界缺乏足够的讨论且司法实践中的案例也引发了不同的争论。研究这一话题,除了在理论层面上予以讨论外,还应当将其置于商标法具体实践的制度之中,通过梳理司法裁判案例以及最新的商业实践发展得出相关结论。本文对此进行了初步探究,得出“品质保证功能在商标法中不具有独立性;品质保证义务(品质保证功能所衍生)非商标法的强制要求”的结论,并指出了这一结论可能的实践和学理价值。本文主要采取了历史研究法、文献研究法和比较研究法。正文分为四章:第一章首先以历史考察的视角,分析品质保证功能的源起和确立,以及其背后的实践意义。其次,从司法实践、理论研究等角度介绍和分析了与品质保证功能相关的法律问题。第二章则具体分析品质保证功能在商标法中不具有独立性,其仅仅是来源识别功能的附属。具体而言,首先,在商品转售行为中,当商品的品质发生改变产生商标权权利用尽的例外时,司法实践判断是否构成商标侵权的落脚点仍是来源识别功能是否受损。其次,针对平行进口,无论是欧盟的“商誉或品质损害”标准,还是美国的“实质性”差异标准,亦或是我国法院判决的米其林轮胎商标案,尽管法院都提及并论述到商标品质保证功能受损,从而否定平行进口的合法性,但商标侵权判断的基点仍是回归到是否造成消费者混淆,即损害来源识别功能。最后,在非典型的商标侵权情形下,比如,销售的商品为真品,但是该真品所贴附的商标为同一生产商用于其它不同档次的商品所持有。则,尽管法院在其中考虑了商标品质保证功能受损,但也是依据来源识别功能受损认定商标侵权成立。第三章则论述品质保证义务并非商标法的强制要求。首先,商标所有人不负有品质保证义务,因为即使商标所有人该变商品品质,消费者也不享有商标法意义上的诉权;且,即使商标所有人未尽品质保证义务,也不会导致商标被撤销。其次商标许可人的品质控制监督义务已与司法和商业实践不符。一是相关的司法实践几乎不再要求许可人负有监督义务,二是新的商业实践,诸如促销型许可使得商标品质保证义务不再具有适用的余地。最后分析商标受让人不负有品质保证义务。第四章则对我国现行商标法中涉及品质保证功能的条款进行了介绍和评述;并且,结合前述理论分析以及域外实践的做法,对相关条款的修改和完善提出了建议。
[Abstract]:As to the function of trademark quality assurance, there is not enough discussion in the academic circle and the cases in judicial practice have caused different debates. In addition to the theoretical level, the research on this topic is not only discussed, but also discussed at the theoretical level. It should also be put into the system of trademark law practice, through combing the judicial adjudication cases and the latest commercial practice development to draw the relevant conclusions, this article has carried on the preliminary exploration to this, It is concluded that "the function of quality assurance is not independent in trademark law; the obligation of quality assurance (derived from the function of quality assurance) is not the compulsory requirement of trademark law". And points out the possible practical and theoretical value of this conclusion. This paper mainly adopts the historical research method, the literature research method and the comparative research method. The text is divided into four chapters: the first chapter is from the perspective of historical investigation. Analyze the origin and establishment of the function of quality assurance, and the practical significance behind it. Secondly, from the judicial practice, The second chapter analyzes that the function of quality assurance is not independent in trademark law, and it is only a subsidiary of the function of source identification. In the behavior of resale of goods, when the quality of goods is changed and the trademark rights are exhausted, the judicial practice still determines whether the function of source identification is damaged or not. Whether it is the European Union's "goodwill or quality damage" standard, the "substantial" difference standard of the United States, or the Michelin tire trademark case decided by our court, although the court has mentioned and stated that the trademark quality assurance function is impaired, Thus denying the legitimacy of parallel import, but the basic point of trademark infringement judgment is still to return to whether or not to cause confusion to consumers, that is, the function of identifying the source of damage. Finally, in the case of atypical trademark infringement, for example, the goods sold are genuine. But the trademark attached to the genuine product is held by the same manufacturer for other different grades... Although the court considered that the trademark quality assurance function was impaired, The third chapter discusses that the obligation of quality guarantee is not a compulsory requirement of trademark law. First of all, the owner of the trademark does not have the obligation to guarantee the quality. Because even if the owner of the trademark should change the quality of the goods, the consumer does not have the right of action in the sense of trademark law; and even if the owner of the trademark fails to fulfill his obligation to guarantee the quality, Secondly, the quality control supervision obligation of the trademark licensor has been inconsistent with the judicial and commercial practice. One is that the relevant judicial practice almost no longer requires the licensor to have the supervision obligation, and the other is the new commercial practice. Such as promotion license makes the trademark quality guarantee obligation no longer applicable. Finally, the analysis of trademark transferee does not have quality warranty obligations. Chapter 4th is related to the existing trademark law of our country quality assurance function clause. Introduced and commented; In addition, based on the above theoretical analysis and the practice of overseas practice, some suggestions are put forward for the modification and perfection of the relevant articles.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923.43

【相似文献】